Posted on 11/11/2005 4:47:36 PM PST by Wolfstar
later read/comment.
I guess so.
And who are you to disagree with me?
Where does your moral authority come from? General consensus? Genetic changes? ... Dietary Supplements?
On what basis were the actions of Hitler wrong? Because you didn't like them?
I thought we were engaged in a rational discussion, not in a tournament to decide the most upstanding. You said that a conclusion that we are no more responsible than rocks follows from a premise that we evolved. I'm saying: tell me why.
On what basis were the actions of Hitler wrong? Because you didn't like them?
I wouldn't expect a condemnation on that basis to be convincing, but on the other hand it's no worse a reason than 'because he did something some hypothetical supernatural being allegedly said not to do.'
And "evolution"(as currently taught) used is an instrument to disprove mans "thingly spirit"..?
AND ultimately an assault on GOD him/its self.?... implying that there is no such thing as a spirit.. which is only a mythical symbol used by aboriginal primitives.. that can't shuck the MYTH.?.
Cause thats what I'm getting in all this..
< /removing intellectual dequise >
On that basis, it seems to me Dennett has endorsed “intelligent cause” (awareness/decision making) as a primary phenomenon which can actually cause things to happen – e.g. behavior being a factor in survival.
But to the contrary, Dennett’s philosophy also notoriously claims that consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. Epiphenomenons are secondary phenomenons which can cause nothing to happen.
So I find his reasoning to be impossible for how can the mind be an epiphenomenon and yet “intentional stance” be actualized in the physical world?
Evidently, I am not alone.
Of course, I find all of this quite interesting but pointless since we observe both awareness and decision making in existents which have no physical brain (such as cells).
Moreover, there is a pitfall to strong artificial intelligence which is Dennett’s ‘thing’ (thermostats have an “intentional stance” in his view). That pitfall is qualia which is subjective – pain/pleasure, likes/dislikes, beauty/ugliness and so on.
It seems the happiness of the Judeo/Christian majority in the U.S. - which is God's absolute morality - increasingly doesn't matter. IOW, the ACLU has obtained moral equivalence by litigation, i.e. the happiness of the minority is as important as the happiness of the majority.
You seem to have a habit of starting your posts with a backhanded insult. I've noticed that on this thread quite a bit. If someone disagrees with you or makes a comment that makes you feel uncomfortable in your shoes, you make a claim that they are not discussing the issues rationally or seriously. Just an observation. (I know you can't help it ;-)
You said that a conclusion that we are no more responsible than rocks follows from a premise that we evolved. I'm saying: tell me why.
Because if, in fact, we are all descended from rocks, as the evolutionists claim, then we are no more responsible for our destiny or our actions than a rock is responsible if gravity pulls it in front of a busload of children.
On the other hand, if we are created (and in the case of Christian philosophy -- if we are created in the image of God) then we are morally obligated to conform to the standards set forth by our creator. If we are not created, then each one of us is our own God and each one of us is responsible only to ourselves for our morality. And if someone has evolved the morality of Adolph Hitler, then who are we to claim a superior moral authority or to stand in judgment of him?
Your problem is not that you don't have a moral conscience or that you do not act morally in accordance with the standards set by some "hypothetical supernatural being"* (Indeedm I suspect that you do), your problem is that without the standard of the "hypothetical supernatural being" you have no concrete moral standard from which to act and your moral standards are subject to nothing more than general consensus. Now, when it becomes the general consensus that killing off the Jewish Race will benefit mankind (as it was in Germany during the Third Reich), then it is not only NOT morally wrong to do it, but doing it then becomes a moral imperative! Therein lies the rub. If someone's actions violate God's standards we can call it a sin. If there is no God and if there are no concrete spiritual standards or no obligation to our creator, then at worst, we can call those actions... unusual.
I eagerly await your next backhanded insult and attendant comment.
*Pretty "Scary Quote", eh?
It's not an insult. You asked me, out of left field, where my moral authority came from. I'm not claiming moral authority.
I've noticed that on this thread quite a bit. If someone disagrees with you or makes a comment that makes you feel uncomfortable in your shoes, you make a claim that they are not discussing the issues rationally or seriously. Just an observation. (I know you can't help it ;-)
I think you are simply unused to rational debate, and are intruding concepts like 'moral authority' which have no place in it. And I've noticed Christians are very inclined to deal out the most insulting responses, yet take offense at the mildest imagined slight. Now we've both told the other what's wrong with him, can we proceed?
Because if, in fact, we are all descended from rocks, as the evolutionists claim, then we are no more responsible for our destiny or our actions than a rock is responsible if gravity pulls it in front of a busload of children.
This is simply a reassertion of your previous position. My computer is descended from rocks too. Yet my computer can post on the internet, and a rock cannot.
Your problem is not that you don't have a moral conscience or that you do not act morally in accordance with the standards set by some "hypothetical supernatural being"* (Indeedm I suspect that you do), your problem is that without the standard of the "hypothetical supernatural being" you have no concrete moral standard from which to act and your moral standards are subject to nothing more than general consensus
This is one more restatement of your undemonstrated moral monopoly position. First of all, your God is in my opinion not particularly moral; the Bible recounts dozens of horrible things done at his command. Second, you state falsely that my moral standards are based on consensus, which they most certainly are not.
Thanks so much for this wonderful essay!
And I think you just lost this one.
My computer is descended from rocks too. Yet my computer can post on the internet, and a rock cannot.
I hate to tell you this, RWP, especially on this particular thread, but your computer is not descended from rocks, but is a product of "INTELLIGENT DESIGN."* And the operator of your computer is infinitely more complex than your "intelligently designed"* computer.
Second, you state falsely that my moral standards are based on consensus, which they most certainly are not.
I did not state that YOUR moral standards are "BASED ON" consensus. I said that in the absence of a standard set by the "hypothetical supernatural being"*, your moral standards are "SUBJECT TO" nothing more than general consensus. And it seems that you ignored the point I made in regard to that assertion.
I do wish that you would at least "read"* my posts before shooting from the hip.
Once again I eagerly await your next backhanded insult and attendant comment.
* There's those "Scary Quotes" again.
Since making the above remarks, you’ve redirected your interest almost entirely to the ‘intelligent design’ idea and to the exclusion of religious concerns, but whether it’s religious beliefs or simply ‘intelligence’ not further defined, your objections are the most common objections raised, other than, perhaps, the often heard cry “but it isn’t science.” However commonly made, these objections seem remarkably unstudied and simpleminded.
Because I’m not studied in philosophy, the only way I know to respond to your objections is by use of a baseball analogy. If you are perfect, then very time you go to bat, you hit a home run; every time you go to the mound, you strike out the side; every time you take the field, nothing gets by you; you make every catch and every throw. It can’t be said you never make a strategic or tactical error, because there’s nothing left in the game over which to commit an error. You aren’t going to lay down a bunt, or pull off a hit-&-run to advance a runner; you’re going to hit a home run, and there’s no runner on base anyway, because in a ‘perfect’ world, he hits a home run too. Every time. You do this inning after inning, day after day, week in and week out. Forever.
And, that’s not even getting into the paradoxes generated by this analogy.
For the purposes of argument, critics of ID would have you believe that ‘perfection’ is some kind of a Stepford Wives existence folded out to encompass the whole universe. Is that a perfect existence? Sounds like Hell to me.
I’ve had occasion, in similar discussions, to use the baseball analogy before, but I’ve never gotten any feedback. Not even so much as yea, nay, or LOL. But, even an unsophisticated old Nebraska country boy like me, can understand that an intelligence, however defined, capable of creating existence is going to explore the proposition well past the point of a suburb or a baseball field (or an IC room). And well past any paygrade to be found at Free Republic (which is to say well past any paygrade to be found anywhere on the web).
Philosophers, since time immemorial, have explored this issue, but I may never get around to their thoughts because I’ve thousands of things I would like to investigate. Ah-ha! you might say, things aren’t so wonderful after all; you’re going to die with a head full of unanswered questions. No. I’m never going to wake up in the morning feeling there’s no point even getting out of bed, because I have nothing to do.
In the interest of full disclosure, I will tell you that I presently reside in Kansas.
My computer is most certainly descended from rocks. Silicon, copper, plastic, all products of rocks. You said in 368 Because if, in fact, we are all descended from rocks, as the evolutionists claim, then we are no more responsible for our destiny or our actions than a rock is responsible if gravity pulls it in front of a busload of children.. Evidently, though, the point you wish to make is not related to whether we come from rocks, it's how we got from rocks. The rocks appear to be a red herring you're wasting both our time with.
I did not state that YOUR moral standards are "BASED ON" consensus. I said that in the absence of a standard set by the "hypothetical supernatural being"*, your moral standards are "SUBJECT TO" nothing more than general consensus. And it seems that you ignored the point I made in regard to that assertion.
It's still a false claim, no matter how you parse it. I don't seek consensus for my moral standards; how, therefore could they be subject to consensus?
I do wish that you would at least "read"* my posts before shooting from the hip.
I think you should read your own.
#389.. Damn thats gotta hurt.. good right hook..
Well at least you didn't start the post with a backhanded insult. That's a start. Your computer is not "descended"* from rocks, it is made of rocks. Therein is the big difference. Men are composed of the same rocks, but both men and computers are not descended from the rocks, but are the product of an intelligent being creating from those rocks the mechanisms for which they were purposed.
Your computer would only be descended from rocks if the rocks themselves were responsible for generating the fully functional computer without the addition of the element of "INTELLIGENCE".*
Left to their own, would the rocks form themselves into what is now your computer? Or was it necessary that "intellgence"* guide the process?
It's still a false claim, no matter how you parse it. I don't seek consensus for my moral standards; how, therefore could they be subject to consensus?
I did not say you did. If you were in Germany in WWI, your moral standard, which would probably oppose the extermination of the Jews, would be subject to the moral consensus of those who based their morality on the idea that the extermination of the Jews was a good thing. If you were then to oppose that consensus, then you would be considered "evil".* Your morality would then become another man's immorality and vice versa.
If society's morality is not founded on the concrete morality of "some hypothetical supernatural being"* then it is clear that the subjective morality of individual ultimately becomes the subjective morality of the society at large and ultimately will dangerously twist in the unpredictible winds of changing societal norms.
*Scary Quotes.
I look at the word "intelligent" and the word "design," and take them literally.
Mirriam-Webster's Online dictionary defines design as follows:
Main Entry: design
1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : DEVISE, CONTRIVE
2 a : to conceive and plan out in the mind [he designed the perfect crime] b : to have as a purpose : INTEND [she designed to excel in her studies] c : to devise for a specific function or end [a book designed primarily as a college textbook]
Mirram-Webster defines intelligent as follows:
Main Entry: intelligent
1 a : having or indicating a high or satisfactory degree of intelligence and mental capacity b : revealing or reflecting good judgment or sound thought : SKILLFUL
2 a : possessing intelligence b : guided or directed by intellect : RATIONAL
Main Entry: intelligence 1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)
I asked my question on this basis, not on a religious basis. However, nearly all responses from people who support the ID concept were religious in nature.
Good design is efficient, economic (in a functional, not financial sense), and suited to the function or purpose intended. Form follows function. Yet we see in nature countless examples of inefficiencies, redundancies, and things (teeth, eyes, fusion of twin embryos, etc.) that do not function efficiently.
Why? Is it possible to answer that question in a totally non-religious manner? Mind you, nothing in my question remotely suggests I mean that good design is the same as perfect design, something which you and many others have overlooked or misunderstood. To be efficient is not the same as to be perfect.
You particularly love to whine about being insulted, and use it as a sort of passive aggressive ad hominem of your own.
Your computer is not "descended"* from rocks, it is made of rocks
Descended in this context means to be derived from ancestors. The ancestor of a computer's silicon is silicon dioxide from rocks. You want to quibble about semantics, quibble with someone else.
If you were in Germany in WWI, your moral standard, which would probably oppose the extermination of the Jews, would be subject to the moral consensus of those who based their morality on the idea that the extermination of the Jews was a good thing. If you were then to oppose that consensus, then you would be considered "evil".* Your morality would then become another man's immorality and vice versa.
I believe you're referring to WWII. And your moral standard would be different in what respect?
If society's morality is not founded on the concrete morality of "some hypothetical supernatural being"* then it is clear that the subjective morality of individual ultimately becomes the subjective morality of the society at large and ultimately will dangerously twist in the unpredictible winds of changing societal norms.
I don't see that as clear at all. Which individual's morality becomes society's? And has Christian morality, even if universally held, ever protected us from this?
Let's say I'm an atheist, with a strong moral objection to killing people on the basis of their religion, living in 17th century Poland. Everyone else in my village is a Christian. Being all of the opinion that the Jews killed Jesus, they decide to have a pogrom of the Jews in the neighboring village. Now, we have a universal, absolute morality; and we have RWP, with his (according to you) subjective morality. Which of us is right?
Ahhh. Another first sentence dig. Nice Technique. Do they teach that at Harvard?
Descended in this context means to be derived from ancestors. The ancestor of a computer's silicon is silicon dioxide from rocks. You want to quibble about semantics, quibble with someone else.
You seem to have completely ignored my point about the necessity of intoducing the element of intelligence in order to turn rocks both into computers and people.
Being all of the opinion that the Jews killed Jesus, they decide to have a pogrom of the Jews in the neighboring village. Now, we have a universal, absolute morality; and we have RWP, with his (according to you) subjective morality. Which of us is right?
Since RWP would be acting more in concert with the revealed will of God and in accordance with the commandments laid down by the "hypothetical supernatural being"* who created us in his image, I'd have to say in that case that, RWP is acting morally and the Christians are acting immorally. Each should and shall be judged accordingly.
BTW what are you a Professor of?** (Grammar?)
* Scary Quote
**Rules for Prepositions: A preposition is something you should never end a sentence with.
"I'm saying people innately distinguish between persons, who have intentionality, and things, which don't"
By the word innately, are you referring to genetically predisposed to being able to read another persons desire or purpose in their actions? If so, how do guilt and shame fit into the intentional theory and where does one go for absolution for breaking the rules?
p.s. I thought you only operated within a one hour limit central time?
”Is it possible to answer that question in a totally non-religious manner?”
Yes it is. And you may observe that I so stipulated in my response (‘an intelligence, however defined’). However, when you combine intelligence with design, and make all creation the object of the combine, it’s not only possible, but near certain, that something more, or something different than was intended, will be read into the outcome.
”nothing in my question remotely suggests I mean that good design is the same as perfect design”
When I’m attempting to explain something difficult (at least difficult for me - maybe it’s easy as pie for you) I tend to first isolate the essence of the proposition, before I backfill details which may modify the proposition, but not destroy it. At least, that’s my epistemological method. If you find it unsatisfying, I’m sorry, but that’s the best I can do.
And, if it’s merely near-perfection that’s represented as some kind of a Stepford Wives existence, it still sounds more like a perfect Hell to me, than that near-perfect existence.
I didn't find it unsatisfactory at all. I just wanted to clarify that I didn't intend for the premise of my original question to be taken as having anything to do with perfection. For that matter, I didn't even intend near-perfection, but the opposite. There countless imperfections in the universe as we know it. I accept that.
What I was trying to get at with my question is how do those who support the ID concept reconcile inefficent design with their theory?
Take eyesight for example. We are designed in such a way that we need eyes to see. That being the case, why are so many of us born with a predisposition to myopia? Doesn't seem like any big deal for an intelligent designer to design eyes that work for the purpose intended. Same thing with teeth. And hair. Are we designed to be bald or to have hair on our head? Why create a design in which people (mostly men) are born with hair only to begin going bald in their 20's or 30's?
There are countless such examples, big and small. All the planets in our solar system rotate left to right (west to east) on their axes except Venus, which rotates the other way. From a design standpoint, why?
All planets revolving around their axes and stars (suns) have different lengths of day and year. That means there is no uniform way to calculate a day and a year in the universe. Why?
Do you see what I'm getting at?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.